| Topic: |
Science > Prophecies-Of-Nostradamus |
| User: |
"Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
| Date: |
16 Sep 2004 06:24:31 AM |
| Object: |
U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future |
Wonder if any of this will hurt The Chimps reelection prospects??
-----------------------------------------------
http://nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16intel.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=
U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - A classified National Intelligence Estimate
prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of
prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday.
The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of
2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war,
the officials said. The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose
stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms.
"There's a significant amount of pessimism," said one government official
who has read the document, which runs about 50 pages. The officials
declined to discuss the key judgments - concise, carefully written
statements of intelligence analysts' conclusions - included in the
document.
The intelligence estimate, the first on Iraq since October 2002, was
prepared by the National Intelligence Council and was approved by the
National Foreign Intelligence Board under John E. McLaughlin, the acting
director of central intelligence. Such estimates can be requested by the
White House or Congress, but this one was initiated by the intelligence
council under George J. Tenet, who stepped down as director of central
intelligence on July 9, the government officials said.
As described by the officials, the pessimistic tone of the new estimate
stands in contrast to recent statements by Bush administration officials,
including comments on Wednesday by Scott McClellan, the White House
spokesman, who asserted that progress was being made.
"You know, every step of the way in Iraq there have been pessimists and
hand-wringers who said it can't be done," Mr. McClellan said at a news
briefing. "And every step of the way, the Iraqi leadership and the Iraqi
people have proven them wrong because they are determined to have a free
and peaceful future."
President Bush, who was briefed on the new intelligence estimate, has not
significantly changed the tenor of his public remarks on the war's course
over the summer, consistently emphasizing progress while acknowledging the
difficulties.
Mr. Bush's opponent, Senator John Kerry, criticized the administration's
optimistic public position on Iraq on Wednesday and questioned whether it
would be possible to hold elections there in January.
"I think it is very difficult to see today how you're going to distribute
ballots in places like Falluja, and Ramadi and Najaf and other parts of
the country, without having established the security,'' Mr. Kerry said in
a call-in phone call to Don Imus, the radio talk show host. "I know that
the people who are supposed to run that election believe that they need a
longer period of time and greater security before they can even begin to
do it, and they just can't do it at this point in time. So I'm not sure
the president is being honest with the American people about that
situation either at this point.''
The situation in Iraq prompted harsh comments from Republicans and
Democrats at a hearing into the shift of spending from reconstruction to
security. Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, called it "exasperating for anybody look at this from
any vantage point," and Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said
of the overall lack of spending: "It's beyond pitiful, it's beyond
embarrassing. It is now in the zone of dangerous."
A spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency declined to comment on any
new intelligence estimate.
All the officials who described the assessment said they had read the
document or had been briefed on its findings. The officials included both
critics and supporters of the administration's policies in Iraq. But they
insisted they not be identified by name, agency or branch of government
because the document remained highly classified.
The new estimate revisits issues raised by the intelligence council in
less formal assessments in January 2003, the officials said. Those
documents remain classified, but one of them warned that the building of
democracy in Iraq would be a long, difficult and turbulent prospect that
could include internal conflict, a government official said.
The new estimate by the National Intelligence Council was approved at a
meeting in July by Mr. McLaughlin and the heads of the other intelligence
agencies, the officials said.
Its pessimistic conclusions were reached even before the recent worsening
of the security situation in Iraq, which has included a sharp increase in
attacks on American troops and in deaths of Iraqi civilians as well as
resistance fighters. Like the new National Intelligence Estimate, the
assessments completed in January 2003 were prepared by the National
Intelligence Council, which is led by Robert Hutchings and reports to the
director of central intelligence. The council is charged with reflecting
the consensus of the intelligence agencies. The January 2003 assessments
were not formal National Intelligence Estimates, however, which means they
were probably not formally approved by the intelligence chiefs.
The new estimate is the first on Iraq since the one completed in October
2002 on Iraq's illicit weapons program. A review by the Senate
Intelligence Committee that was completed in July has found that document
to have been deeply flawed.
The criticism over the document has left the C.I.A. and other agencies
wary of being wrong again in judgments about Iraq.
Declassified versions of the October 2002 document included dissents from
some intelligence agencies on some crucial questions, including the issue
of whether Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. The government
officials who described the new estimate on the prospects for Iraq would
not say if it had included significant dissents.
On Wednesday night, Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the National Security
Council, confirmed the existence of the intelligence estimate, but he
declined to discuss its contents in detail because they were classified.
But he said the document "makes clear why it is so important to stand with
the Iraqi people as they face these challenges.''
Mr. McCormack said that in describing "different possible scenarios for
Iraq's political and economic future over the course of 18 months,'' the
document had made clear that "Iraq's future will be determined by a number
of different factors, include the nation's economic progress, the
effectiveness of Iraq's political structure, and security and stability.''
He added: "In the past, including before the war to liberate Iraq, there
were many different scenarios that were possible, including the outbreak
of civil war. It hasn't happened. The Iraqi people continue to defy the
predictions of pundits and others.''
Separate from the new estimate, Republicans on the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee issued other warnings on Wednesday about the American
campaign in Iraq, saying the administration's request to divert more than
$3 billion to security from the $18.4 billion aid package of last November
was a sign of trouble.
"Although we recognize these funds must not be spent unwisely," the
committee chairman, Mr. Lugar said, "the slow pace of reconstruction
spending means that we are failing to fully take advantage of one of our
most potent tools to influence the direction of Iraq."
Less than $1 billion has been spent so far.
The committee's ranking Democrat, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware,
one of the harshest critics of the Iraq policies, was far more outspoken.
"The president has frequently described Iraq as, quote, 'the central front
of the war on terror,' " Mr. Biden went on. "Well by that definition,
success in Iraq is a key standard by which to measure the war on terror.
And by that measure, I think the war on terror is in trouble."
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
